in 1997, i took a business partner and open the second business entity as a limited liability company, opening four other bay area locations which we have run for a number of years. in none of these past 22 years have the police and or any other entity other than for a second- hand dealer permit advise me this is something required to operate my business. when i received this, it seemed very suspect that after having a business and operation for 22 years, paying all of my taxes etc., that i would be forced to comply with something i didn't know anything about and pay $1,500 in fees which in 2010, i was lucky to be able to pay my rent, let alone such a high fee. it seems like a very antiquated law that should --

[tone] i understand the need for regulations for firearms and electronics but very few of us sell that. supervisor wiener: thank you. next speaker. >> i own an antique shops and art gallery in the western addition. i've been in business for four years, contributing to the vitality and commercial street my business is located on. i'm open on the weekends and evenings, giving artists the opportunity to showcase their work. eyesores from all over the bay and the state, buy from dealers -- i source from all over the bay and the state. i am diligent that i purchase my items from good, reputable dealers. i have an active member of the corridor business association.

i also barely pay my bills each month. this industry is a very difficult one, especially given the rising rents and costs of doing business in a very expensive city. paying $1,500 would be months worth of profit. there's no way i could ever document each and every sale with an identifying description of these customer. my customers would see this as an invasion of their privacy and i would lose business because of it. a reputable small business that contributes to the economic vitality of san francisco. please treat people and people like me accordingly. i strongly support the repeal of this anti-business and unnecessary police code. supervisor wiener: thank you. next speaker. >> it good afternoon, supervisors. i'm the owners of leftovers home consignment shop on van ness. we've been in business three years.

i do understand the importance of making sure the people in this business are selling items that are surrendered by the actual owners of their property. i think it's realistic and understandable to have us fill out information you would require to make sure there are no sleazy people in this business. i think in regards to my shop, we only sell home furniture. no one is going to steal a couch and try to halt it. we don't accept anyone who comes in off the street and wants cash instantly. everything is run through high- tech computer system. every tag has a price tag with a scanner code. all of our inventory is monitored by myself or the store manager who has been with us for three years. the items we sell are not things

that anyone would want to steal. we also did not carry any electronics, cell phones, gold watches. we have a nominal amount of jewelry but it is clearly the owners who are moving who are trying to sell their items. it's not somebody who is shaky. thank you. supervisor wiener: thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon. and the co-owner of coal valley antiques. we have had our business for a half years. this permit came to my attention just a couple of years ago. my main point is we did everything we needed to do to

open our business correctly what the right permits and to city hall and took every step we needed to open the business. we were never informed of a permit until i received a certified letter just a couple of years ago. i did not receive anything in this wave. i just received a certified letter that was fairly intimidating enough, telling me if i did not pay within 10 days and comply, i could be cited. i'm a small business owner and mother of two young children. a single mother of two young children. , moved here 20 years ago and one of the things i fell in love with -- i moved here 20 years ago and one of the things i fell in love with was the geek shops. we're trying to contribute in that way. i also share the concerns for

the ability to fence stolen goods, but there must be other ways to go about this rather than through these exorbitant fees in permits. the filing fee two years ago was $963 and then they want a couple of hundred dollars to have me fingerprinted. these are the types of fees that are going to put us under. we can barely stay in business right now. we are trying to weather the storm of this economy. [tone] there must be other ways to circumnavigate the the question of stolen goods through the integrity of the store owners and other ways to go about it. thank you. supervisor wiener: thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i own an arts and antique emporium on market street. i've been in business for 32

years in various locations. i was never made aware of this the but i have complied, so, for me it is a moot point. i've paid the fees a year-and-a- half ago when i received the threatening letters. i immediately complied and got fingerprinted and photographed. my issue is trying to comply with the actual ordnance. it is impossible. i sell hundreds of things per month. i sell mostly to dealers and decorators. i still -- i sell to a steady line of regular clients and get people from all over the world. as everybody said already, it's a very difficult to do business as it is right now. the economy is not great and we do what we can to be as flexible as we can and stay in business. most people can't afford the fee. i can afford the fee, sort of, but the problem is complying with this law. it's virtually impossible.

it's an imposition on my clients. i would hate to ask my customers to give me more information than is actually necessary that i would put on a receipt. it's almost treating them like criminals. i don't buy anything off the street. my sources are other antique stores, a flea markets, estate sales, auctions. other people buy things from the restores, bye-bye from reputable deals -- reputable dealers. we are not pawnbrokers, we are an antique stores. pawnbrokers need something like this and for antique stores, it simply will not work. it is impossible. supervisor wiener: thank you. next speaker. >> hello, supervisors. i don't to stores in the castro. i have been in business since

2006 after a progression of a little shop on market. since i complied with all of the requirements for licenses and permits, i was never aware of this license. a couple of years ago was my first attention. they showed up at my store and some of our i was really surprised and the way they treated us for the requirement and other people, plants in the store, i believe the license can be bought able to have but it's very expensive the first time i was required to pay. it was about $900 and then it went to $1,300 with all of the fees and all of these added up to 1900 dollars. i paid for one of my locations.

the second one is still pending. i don't know what's coming to happen but i feel it's a very expensive license. my consignors our regular consignors. we have more than 500 right now and most of them are regular that come every six months and drop off merchandise. we have all of the information on them. i feel like this type of license is not for second-hand clothing stores. i also don't agree with the treatment we got about getting a license. thank you. supervisor wiener: thank you very much. is there any other public comment? supervisor farrell: seeing none, public comment is closed. supervisor wiener: i would like to thank everyone for coming out today.

it's extremely hard to get small business owners to come out for public comment because they have it -- because they have to run their business and sometimes they're the only person there and it's a real pain to come to city hall and sit for couple of hours waiting for your two minutes. i've never been very successful at getting small business owners to come out. we were successful today because these sections are not pro-small business. these over broglie a lump in many, many good, honest small- business owners and treat them as if they were running the worst kind of pawnshop basically. it's not just about fees. the fee is significant and onerous. it's also about the fingerprinting and having to go to the hall of justice and be photographed at as the one gentleman mentioned, having to keep a log. whether you are reporting every seven days or 30 days, you are

still having to keep meticulous records of every single transaction, including a description of the person. it's unreasonable, it is not pro-small business and undermines our ability to keep a vibrant commercial corridor with these unique businesses. the police department has expressed some concerns, but i think many of them are covered by sections, including firearms permit, the junk dealer permit and the pawnshop permit. it is not as if some of the businesses that may be more likely to have problems are not covered. they are already covered and this will allow us to support these critical eyebrow at small businesses instead of treating them as if they were criminals. colleagues, i request your support.

supervisor chiu: i would like to think supervisor wiener for bringing this forward. we do have a lot of regulations on the book that i think create needless confusion and process for folks who are just trying to get by and it's important to simplify and eliminate

requirements where we need to. of that being said, we have certainly rick -- we've heard issues that have been raised by the san francisco police department. i would like to paint supervisor wiener's office and the police department and i would like to suggest we give it a little more time and asked the sponsor of the measure if we put this over until the first week of september when we get back, and either leave it in committee or move it forward with our recommendation, i would like this legislation to get to a place i can support but it seems that there is a need for one last conversation on this. supervisor farrell: thank you for the small business owners to

have come out. take a lot of people -- it takes a lot for people to take time out of the day. i pretty much echo the comments -- i want to support this from the small business perspective and there needs to be at least one more conversation here. but i would like to talk to their project sponsor. legislative sponsor. supervisor wiener: i just want to say and i think it has come out during this hearing that i have a certain frustration level with the police department a around this issue, after being told by the chief we were good to go, there has been a series of different rationales for what is wrong with the legislation or what needs to be left in tact. the only specific thing i

understood coming in today was the possibility of keeping the permitted place for businesses that accepted cash over the counter. you walked in with a leather jacket and they give me 50 bucks for best -- keeping the permit in place for that, but eliminating fees and a fingerprinting and daily record- keeping requirement and the other unreasonable aspects of this legislation. but the department has stated, after first stating i did not raise this note in my original letter, which is inaccurate, stating the only changes should be reducing the fee or making the reporting less frequent than one day. i have a certain frustration level and we've gotten inconsistent levels from the police department'.

with that said, i would recommend we put this out of committee not as a committee report which would go tomorrow, but rather on the regular course which means it would come to the board of supervisors at our next meeting after tomorrow, which is september 4. in the interim, i will convene another meeting with the police department and ask that the chief be there personally with his staff so that we stop getting inconsistent messages from the department and we will do our very best to work this out. that would be my request. i would make that motion. supervisor chiu: i am happy to support that. supervisor farrell: we have a motion to send this out to the full board so it would be scheduled on september 4 regularly scheduled board meeting. this is for item number one.

>> item #one will be referred without recommendation to the board of supervisors meeting. supervisor farrell: just item number one. so moved. supervisor wiener: as for item number two, up we have not heard any objections and these are antiquated things that should be repealed. i recommend we move that to the full board on september 4. supervisor farrell: we have a motion to move item no. 2 ford with recommendation to the fault board. we can do that without objection. are there any other items? >> it that completes the agenda.

supervisor farrell: thank you. the meeting is adjourned. >> -- supervisor mar: good afternoon, everyone.

i am eric mar. i am the chair of the committee. our meeting is televised by sfgtv. [unintelligible] >> please turn off any cell phones or electronic devices. any speaker cards should be submitted to the clerk. items discussed today will be a book on the september 4, 2012 supervisors agenda. supervisor mar: please call item no. 1. >> i am asking to accept and expend the polo fields for the

golden gate park. >> thank you. this is my item. this is an important resolution. the board needs to approve a gift from the baker street foundation to accept and expend this gift to hire one of the gardener for assistance in maintenance of the polo fields. because of budget cuts, they are only maintained on a part-time basis. staff determined adding gardening staff was a high priority to preserve the quality of the turf at the 16-acre sports and events complex. it is particularly critical with the upcoming large-scale events at golden gate park. without attention, gophers and heavy traffic will undermine the

quality of the turf. the rec and park commission voted to accept this gift. i am recommending this resolution go out with the committee report in order to help the department and with the huge crowds for the concert coming up in august. we are approaching this move forward to tomorrow. lisa branson from the rec and park department is here to answer any questions you might have. if there are no questions, we will go to public comments. seeing none no questions, is there anyone from the public who would like to speak. great. thank you. colleagues, can we move this forward as a committee report to go to the july 31, 2000 -- july 21 -- july 31, 2012 board of supervisors meeting. thank you. ms. miller, can you call item

no. two? >> ordinates amending the san francisco help code by adding article 12c. >supervisor chiu: the legislation that we have in front of us is designed to encourage onsite water use and when the bill the. we opened a new puc building at 525 golden gate. this building is our real landmark. the building will use 60% less water due to a system that meets 100% of the toilet flushing- irrigation needs for water. it will be recycling 5,000 gallons a day of waste water. it will be storing rain water in a basement cistern. in recent years, it has been challenging for developers

installing the systems in major buildings, but i want to take a moment and think the staff of the puc who have worked closely with the department of building inspection and the department of public health to solve these challenges. the ordinance before us will developers install these water systems in new, large developments. it will streamline the process in maintaining great water, rain water, and blackwater. i also want to thank the puc for setting up the grant program for commercial developers who want to install the water testing process. it will save the of the environment -- save the environment and money. with that, i would like to recognize the staff of the san francisco puc and see if there

is anything staff would like to add. i know they were here briefly. i want to thank you and your colleagues for all the work you have done on this. if there's anything we have missed -- colleagues. >> we just want to appreciate your considering of this ordinance. just by way of context, we hear residents' use about 85 gallons of water a day compared to 150 gallons per day across the state, and that is because of many ordinance is that the board of supervisors have passed historic the, the many programs we have in place that really helps. as we look for new opportunities, we find it is on the commercial side. we appreciate the board leadership. we have a number of staff here

from the puc to answer any technical questions. again, thank you. supervisor mar: thank you. let's open this up for public comment. is there anyone from the public who would like to speak? please come forward. we're going to limit it to two minutes per person. >> two minutes, while. my name is scott. i represent a water machine system. the company provides waste water treatment management technology. i also want to think the committee for this opportunity to speak in support of the water reuse ordinance. through this ordinance, the puc has really provided visionary leadership by saving money, addressing regional water issues, and promoting development as well. in terms of the benefits, i will

put them quickly into three categories. economic benefits, community wide benefits, as well as environmental. the economic benefits include reduced capital cost. these on-site systems cost less than traditional systems. they create jobs, green jobs. they provide a clear path for developers. they also reduce the load on existing waste water infrastructure. community-wise, but these types of water reuse systems provide resilience for water shortages. the enhanced san francisco -- they enhance san francisco. the whole country is really watching what san francisco is doing as far as water. we are not the only technology. my time is almost up.

thank you for the opportunity. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors. thank you. i am with spur. we have had the opportunity to consider this ordinance going back several months now. as you know, but such systems can factor in the reused water on the site. our reuse for non potable sources -- we really think we should be moving away from using our wonderful hetch hetchy water for these types of uses.

in the process, the puc has been putting this in place to make it easier for developers to consider and hopefully to include on-site treatment systems in the new building san francisco will be getting in future years. so, these treatments systems can generate significant amounts of water, as you of heard. about 25% of potable water. as president tchiu mentioned, they have created a system to help some of the system's. that is 40%. the significant. hopefully, we can get more significant types of systems going forward. i want to conclude that i recently got to see the living machine at 525 golden gate. i was encouraged.